Left, Right agree: Obama’s G-20 performance worst ever

posted at 3:00 pm on November 14, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

First, let’s hear from the usual suspects. The Wall Street Journal looks at Barack Obama’s performance at the G-20 summit as well as his trip to Seoul and pronounces it the worst ever for an American President. The editors are disgusted by the performance, but in the end say failure was the right outcome:

Has there ever been a major economic summit where a U.S. President and his Treasury Secretary were as thoroughly rebuffed as they were at this week’s G-20 meeting in Seoul? We can’t think of one. President Obama failed to achieve any of his main goals while getting pounded by other world leaders for failing U.S. policies and lagging growth.

The root of this embarrassment is political and intellectual: Rather than leading the world from a position of strength, Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness. America’s problem, in their view, is the export and exchange rate policies of the Germans, Chinese or Brazilians. And the U.S. solution is to have the Fed print enough money to devalue the dollar so America can grow by stealing demand from the rest of the world. …

The world also rejected Mr. Geithner’s high-profile call for a 4% limit on a nation’s trade surplus or deficit, which would amount to new political controls on trade and capital flows. This contradicts at least three decades of U.S. policy advice against national barriers to the flow of money and goods. We don’t like to see U.S. Treasury Secretaries so completely shot down by the rest of the world, except when they are so clearly misguided.

But this is the Wall Street Journal, Obama’s defenders will say. The capitalists at the WSJ don’t like Obama anyway. Well, that’s certainly true, as the Journal has provided one of the few substantial media platforms that has bothered to look critically at Obama’s performance rather than his public-relations profile. But how about looking 3,000 miles west to San Francisco, the heart of Nancy Pelosi-style progressivism, to see how his G-20 performance looked from that perspective? Interestingly, it looks as though Obama has truly delivered consensus when one reads the San Francisco Chronicle editorial from yesterday’s edition:

Shellacked at home, shellacked abroad. President Obama’sAsia trip is extending a losing streak with the latest setback – a refusal by other major financial powers to follow his lead to revive the global economy.

The president’s nostrums, which began with a call for stimulus-style pump priming by other nations, had evolved into a plan to ease wild swings in currency values and overboard trade imbalances. But he got next to nothing in showdown meetings with other leaders of the G-20 nations, or major economic powers. U.S. leadership, once taken for granted, has all but vanished, and no one’s in charge.

Of course, as the Chronicle notes later in the article, Obama could hardly be said to be providing a lead to follow. He arrived at the G-20, fresh from his rebuff from Seoul over a trade agreement that George Bush had wrapped in a tidy bow three years ago and Democrats rejected, insisting that the industrialized nations refrain from currency manipulations — while defending the second round of quantitative easing that the Fed introduced to do just that. Obama learned the hard way that few people will follow a “Do as I say, not as I do” model of leadership, and may end up touching off a currency war as a result.

In 2008, we warned about the dangers of putting a man in the White House with no executive, military, diplomatic, or private-sector experience. It should shock no one to find that American leadership has utterly vanished on the international stage when we elect someone incapable of providing that leadership. The lesson from both the Right and Left coasts’ media is that Barack Obama is in way over his head and doesn’t have a clue how to get back to the surface.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

People are judging Obama by a completely unfair standard. America’s Community-Organizer-In-Chief behaved precisely as everyone – on both sides of the aisle – have always expected him to behave. He was simply out of his element.

Obama’s “failure” was only an issue of micro-geography. Of course he had no business whatsoever being INSIDE the building. But he would have been perfectly at home with a megaphone leading the rabid Communist protestors out on the street.

Is it ok for me to say, bho is one blooming idiot? To the rest of the world, I am so sorry this man is our president, he and his team are an embarrassment to our Republic. I only hope to goodness we can undo the damage he has done.
L

Is it ok for me to say, bho is one blooming idiot? To the rest of the world, I am so sorry this man is our president, he and his team are an embarrassment to our Republic. I only hope to goodness we can undo the damage he has done.
L

letget on November 14, 2010 at 3:13 PM

stop apologizing. We all knew this was going to happen when he was elected.. heck even the world knew. No need to keep apologizing for a failure when we need to look towards the future and figure out how to fix it…. with or without our elected officials.

Presidents aren’t supposed to go aboard and get involved in policy except to sign something or at least make positive progress. Of course, even before the election, Obama reserved the right to meet with any foreign leader, anywhere, anytime, for any reason. Because he would be the President and no one’s going to tell him what to do or not to do. Well, good for you. This one was a disaster.

It should shock no one to find that American leadership has utterly vanished on the international stage when we elect someone incapable of providing that leadership. The lesson from both the Right and Left coasts’ media is that Barack Obama is in way over his head and doesn’t have a clue how to get back to the surface.

The lesson from both the Right and Left coasts’ media is that Barack Obama is in way over his head and doesn’t have a clue how to get back to the surface.

Give him something that he has truly earned….. The Barack 0bama Submariner Award…an award so unique and exclusive that it can only be issued to one man for his chart topping G-20 performance. He came with Hope, and he’s leaving with Bupkis. Strong work champ.

isn’t that the truth. I have learned more from Rush Limbaugh than anything else. He is proven right, time and time again. Mr. Obama was, again, the most inexperienced and unqualified person in the room at the G-20. We flew him around the world to get his butt handed to him. He’s had that happen to him twice in two weeks—first, by us on Election Day, and then by the G20 on Friday.

Even the most ardent Obama supporter should be embarrassed by the collapse of bilateral trade talks with South Korea. President Obama had correctly hailed the South Korea-U.S. free trade agreement (KORUS FTA) as critically important for the United States. The U.S. International Trade Commission estimated the agreement would increase U.S. exports by $10 billion—a jobs stimulus package that wouldn’t cost the federal government a dime.

But once again the trade accord was held hostage to narrow-minded demands by Congressmen and lobbying groups. Clearly, for the Obama White House, special interests trump national interest.

The media repeatedly mischaracterized the trade discussions this week as close to achieving an agreement. Sorry, but the agreement was already reached—over three years ago when the United States and South Korea signed the completed document. But the Administration adopted North Korea’s (and Speaker Pelosi’s) negotiating strategy—no agreement is final, even after signature.

What makes the debacle in Seoul painfully ironic is that the Obama team was pushing for concessions on beef that go beyond even what industry groups were advocating. The major beef exporter groups have publicly declared they are satisfied with the existing KORUS agreement and argued against further changes.

Several years ago, South Korea closed its market to U.S. beef after a few cases of mad cow disease were discovered. But American beef returned to South Korea two years ago and sales are rapidly climbing. U.S. beef is regaining market share and is on track to resume its position as the largest foreign importer.

The United States appears to have torpedoed the trade talks with last minute demands to force the Korean market open to U.S. beef over 30 months old—a minor category that would only provide a few percentage points of potential sales at best.

Pressure by U.S. automobile manufacturers and auto unions likely also played a part in the disintegration of the talks. One demand was to exempt U.S. cars from Korea’s more stringent emission standards—an odd request given the congressional leadership’s May 2007 demands that Seoul adopt stronger environmental standards.

Obama’s decision to allow the talks to collapse—and make no mistake, the decision was made at the presidential level—was a colossal blunder. It reflects serious shortcomings in his strategic thinking since it will have dramatic repercussions for U.S. foreign policy. Not only does it show the emperor has no clothes when claiming he favors free trade, but unless he can get this back in the very quick order he referenced in Seoul, the U.S. will lose all credibility in pushing other trade issues, such as the nine-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Walking away from the KORUS will hurt U.S. economic recovery, strain relations with a key U.S. ally, and undermine American trade objectives—a true trifecta of failure.

Obama learned the hard way that few people will follow a “Do as I say, not as I do” model of leadership

Hey, it’s the model that got him elected to the highest office in the land. You really can’t blame him for thinking it would work everywhere. But then, not everyone in the world is as stupid as 52% of the American electorate proved themselves to be in 2008.

Anyone want to bet he thought he would be gloriously successful during this international trip to deflect everyone from focusing on his absolute rejection at the polls on 11/2? Instead he failed as miserably during this trip as he did at the polls.

Obama should just be viewed thru the prism of the unions. He has done what’s good for them at every turn.

If he can’t ram UAW cars down the throat of Korea, so be it.

At every stop, he is always saying that his job is to get jobs for business and the Workers.

He is not a free trader, never wants to be. He is a mercantilist. we will sell stuff to you one way or another….we will devalue our dollar so that your people will buy or worker’s stuff. We don’t care about you or your workers.

I am having trouble believing that this guy could possibly be this monumentally stupid. Are we sure this isn’t deliberate? I mean just out of basic charity to the man’s intellect, shouldn’t we assume he is doing precisely what he means to do?

I am having trouble believing that this guy could possibly be this monumentally stupid. Are we sure this isn’t deliberate? I mean just out of basic charity to the man’s intellect, shouldn’t we assume he is doing precisely what he means to do?

sharrukin on November 14, 2010 at 4:16 PM

I don’t think stupidity is the right word. We’ve all worked with people who are intelligent, yet are a horrendous pain in the ass to deal with. The end result of dealing with the stupid, and the stupid-smart-arrogant types is the same—that is, nobody wants to work with you because they don’t believe they’re being dealt with in a reasonable fashion. Mr. Obama’s untrustworthiness is showing through in multiple ways. 1) Independent voters leaving him. 2) Democrat voters leaving him. 3) Democrats in Congress leaving him. 4) Staffers backbiting him and now 5) the G20 is ignoring him. This is a pattern. He is not trustworthy with people’s votes, with their interests, their information, nor their deals. He’s ending up holding an empty bag, time and again, and there is little reason as to wonder “why?” any longer.

Mr. Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner came to Seoul blaming the rest of the world for U.S. economic weakness.

This is the difference between leaders and followers. Followers blame and snipe. Leaders will lead. Leaders assume responsibility and develop plans, manage risk and encourage. Followers assign blame and point fingers. These two are weak sauce and they proved as much with their little trip to get bling.

People have been noticing Obama’s vanity for a long time. In 2008, one of his Harvard Law classmates, the entertainment lawyer Jackie Fuchs, explained what Obama was like during his school days: “One of our classmates once famously noted that you could judge just how pretentious someone’s remarks in class were by how high they ranked on the ‘Obamanometer,’ a term that lasted far longer than our time at law school. Obama didn’t just share in class—he pontificated. He knew better than everyone else in the room, including the teachers.

This is a pattern. He is not trustworthy with people’s votes, with their interests, their information, nor their deals. He’s ending up holding an empty bag, time and again, and there is little reason as to wonder “why?” any longer.

ted c on November 14, 2010 at 4:23 PM

I agree its a pattern and he most certainly behaves as if he inhabits a bubble of Invincible Stupidity.

What I wonder at is the idea that no one informed him of the facts, or that he would not listen. He is a product of certain people and chose those individuals and that environment. These were very anti-American people, and he was groomed by others to arrive at where he is. He obviously went along with that so he was capable of taking advice and minimally competent.

If he is as incompetent as he appears to be and unwilling to listen to advice, then how on earth did he ever reach the Senate much less the Presidency?

What I wonder at is the idea that no one informed him of the facts, or that he would not listen. He is a product of certain people and chose those individuals and that environment. These were very anti-American people, and he was groomed by others to arrive at where he is. He obviously went along with that so he was capable of taking advice and minimally competent.

If he is as incompetent as he appears to be and unwilling to listen to advice, then how on earth did he ever reach the Senate much less the Presidency?

sharrukin on November 14, 2010 at 4:37 PM

Its only in the political arena where the ephemeral “accomplishments” of an individual rarely add up to what they appear to be. If I’m not mistaken, he won his Senate seat by getting the opponent thrown off the ballot for some reason–or maybe that was a state seat, I can’t recall. However, he certainly didn’t arrive in the Senate with a stellar record of accomplishing anything.

What a surprise, leftist economics doesn’t sell any better to other nations than it does within the U.S.!

This isn’t about Obama’s inexperience, it’s about his continued belief in massive government spending and regulation of business, opposition to free trade, and other thoroughly discredited leftwing economic theories.

Dear POTUS:
Will you please let the South Koreans buy our beef?
They want it. In fact, S. Koreans have come here to ND trying to set up a feedlot etc so that they can buy our beef, which they love.
Also while you’re at it, Mr. President, will you please let private companies test their slaughtered beef for BSE so that the Japanese can buy the product they want from us & know without a doubt it’s safe? It is really strange how you won’t let companies test their cows for a disease so they can sell it to a trading partner, which wants that service.
Thanks for listening.

I can’t recall. However, he certainly didn’t arrive in the Senate with a stellar record of accomplishing anything.

ted c on November 14, 2010 at 4:53 PM

A stellar record is one thing, but this type of total incompetence is something else. He had to have listened to someone’s advice or been at least basically competent.

This isn’t Alvin Greene we are talking about here.

This sort of thing is what I mean…

What makes the debacle in Seoul painfully ironic is that the Obama team was pushing for concessions on beef that go beyond even what industry groups were advocating. The major beef exporter groups have publicly declared they are satisfied with the existing KORUS agreement and argued against further changes.

This is a gimme. Raise the issue and if they say no then sign the agreement anyway and take home a win. He needed a win after the elections and he must know that as do his advisors. He chose to push it to the point of losing the agreement and holding that position.

He has changed his mind on keeping troops in Afghanistan and trials and other things so the idea that he won’t alter his course once set isn’t true. The one thing that you can take to the bank is that what he chooses will cause dissension and/or be very bad for the country.

What makes the debacle in Seoul painfully ironic is that the Obama team was pushing for concessions on beef that go beyond even what industry groups were advocating. The major beef exporter groups have publicly declared they are satisfied with the existing KORUS agreement and argued against further changes.

This is a gimme. Raise the issue and if they say no then sign the agreement anyway and take home a win. He needed a win after the elections and he must know that as do his advisors. He chose to push it to the point of losing the agreement and holding that position.

sharrukin on November 14, 2010 at 5:12 PM

I guess I see your point. That is pretty stupid if he went further than the industry wanted to the point of letting the whole thing go down the tubes. He could’ve had an agreement and wound up with egg on his face instead.

Can we agree to never send another old crippled RINO into a presidential election?

HelenW on November 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM

I don’t know how you meant that, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended this as an example of the left’s characterization of McCain. The left didn’t want to honor his war record, but instead talked about how he could keel over at any minute. Obama mocked him as not being able to type.

This disaster has a simple cause. 0 has stated that he knows more than any one about anything. He just knew he could take a treaty or anything else someone else has prepared and with his brilliant mind and personality negotiate something much better. This is a pattern well established in his 2 years. I don’t think he is capable of realizing he is not as brilliant as he thinks he is.